Though I suppose we're not "users" of such a system, but are rather "subjected to it"
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_in_the_United_Sta...
EDIT: I guess you could rules-lawyer about the meaning of "majority" but like... you don't even need a majority of users to start a fork! Two people is enough to start a fork. There's nothing preventing me from starting a fork of Bitcoin today and mining/trading it among my friends. It's just that normally people feel compelled to go along with what the majority is doing
If enough people on the blockchain decide to update their code to do something different, you either fork or move with them.
* blockchains are centralized; just in a different way
I wish bitcoin were solving a real problem for the amount of energy it uses.
Absolute integrity is a lot less important in systems which assume that inexpensive manual overrides will be possible - because you save a ton by simply deciding to build a system that 'only' works 99.9% of the time and intervening in 0.1% of cases. Obviously blockchains don't work 100% of the time but that's the premise for their increased costs.
I'm not sure the analogy even works, but in the case of driving, if 99% decided to switch how the roads were to be used, I assure you that literal resistance would not be tolerated. There might be some incidents, but there wouldn't be very many before the 1% were the ones getting pushed around.
Samoa changed road direction a while ago. Not everyone was on board, but it happened anyway.